Arrangement for transportation of petroleum products was essentially a contract for transportation of goods and not an arrangement of hiring of vehicles. In view thereof, tax is required to be deducted at source from the payments to the carrier in terms of provisions of sec. 194C of the Act and not u/s 194I of the Act.
DCIT Vs. Divine International (ITAT Delhi) – The CIT(A) has denied the deduction in respect of the addition on account of the so called sundry creditors on the ground that as per the provisions of Section 80 HHC, it is only the income derived by the assessee from the export of such merchandise which is eligible and the addition on account of creditors cannot be considered as income derived from the exports.
ITO V. M/s. S-Net Freight (India) P. Ltd. (ITAT Chennai) – The Tribunal order has recognised that beneficial ownership and legal ownership could be different and for the purpose of section 79 of the Act, the beneficial ownership was relevant. Accordingly, share transfers by nominees or trustees of the beneficial owner would not trigger the provisions of section 79 of the Act while the beneficial ownership did not change beyond 51 percent.
Li & Fung (India) Pvt. Ltd. Vs. DCIT (ITAT Delhi)- ITA No. 5156/Del/2010] Tribunal ruling that the amount of compensation to be received ought to be a reflection of the functions performed, assets deployed and risks assumed by the associated enterprises (‘AE’) whilst discharging the business. On the concept of location savings the Tribunal held […]
Abhiram Seth Vs. JCIT (ITAT Delhi) Facts :- Abhiram Seth (the assessee) was employed in an executive position with M/s. PepsiCo India Holdings (P) Ltd., part of PepsiCo Inc.The assessee was granted valuable rights in shares of Pepsi Co Inc. Employees’ Stock Options [ESOP] held with Barry Group of Merrill Lynch [Trust], USA. Such rights […]
ORDER- A N Pahuja: This appeal filed on 15.3.2011 by the Revenue against an order dated 31-01-2011 of the ld. CIT(Appeals)- XX, New Delhi, for the Assessment Year 2005-06, raises the following grounds:-
DCIT, New Delhi Vs M/s NTPC- SAIL Power Supply Co Ltd – Whether after insertion of proviso to section 36(1)(iii), the interest paid on capital borrowed for acquisition of an asset for extension of existing business or profession for any period beginning from the date on which the capital was borrowed for acquisition of the asset till the date on which such asset was first put to use, is rightly not allowed as deduction and the interest income earned on FDRs made from surplus fund and interest earned on margins and advances made for expansion work is rightly assessed under the head `income from other sources’
Asst. Director of Income Tax Vs. Shri Ranjay Gulati (ITAT Delhi)– Under section 48 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 the income chargeable under the head “Capital gains” shall be computed, by deducting from the full value of the consideration received or accruing as a result of the transfer of the capital asset the following […]
Vodafone Essar South Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax ITAT Delhi I.T.A. No. 3238/Del/2009 A.Y. : 2004- 05 ORDER This appeal by the Assessee is directed against the order of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) dated 30.3.2009 pertaining to assessment year 2004-05. 2. The grounds raised read as under:- “On the facts and […]
ACIT Vs. Parablic Drugs Ltd. (ITAT Delhi) – It has to be held that all of these expenditure were incurred by the assessee in the course of its business and none of the expenditure can be classified as expenditure in the nature of capital. The case law relied upon by the ld. AR supports the case of the assessee. Therefore, we found no infirmity in the order of CIT(A) vide which the assessee has been held eligible for deduction of these expenditure under both the sections either u/s 35(1)(i) or u/s 37(1) of the Act.
